Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Made Me Sad Today

raganwald.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 186 posts

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#71

Post by patio11 »

bhousel wrote: post #58
patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

Remnant inventory is also virtually synonymous with Google... really, how? ...which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising... what? ...which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive. wat? Do you really believe this?

really, how?

Advertising is not traditionally sold on a self-service basis. It is traditionally sold via Big Enterprise Sales processes, caricatured above as "steak dinners between advertising sales and ad buyers at big brands." This is enormously big business: ever bus ad, every TV ad, most newspaper ads, etc that you've ever seen was sold this way.

Google is the alternative model for advertising, and (as such) is overwhelmingly remnant inventory: that which we still have to sell after the Enterprise Ad Sales is over with. Google makes 97% of their revenues -- read their annual reports for how many billions of dollars that is -- through a) creation of remnant inventory (primarily on their search engine) and b) monetization of remnant inventory (2/3 on their own properties, 1/3 all over the public Internet).

Do you really believe this?

There is a little bit of exaggeration and understatement for comedic effect -- specifically, the words "biproduct" and "non-trivial." I absolutely believe, in my heart of hearts, that Google is primarily an advertising company which makes excellent use of technology, not a technology company which makes good use of advertising. That is easily the most controversial opinion about our industry that I have. I also think that Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history. I respect that you may think differently about either or both of these points.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#72

Post by ig1 »

raganwald wrote: post #13
ig1 wrote: post #9

What's the alternative ? Having content locked behind a pay-wall so even less people can access it ? Running ads which are more relevant but don't generate enough revenue to make the site viable in the long term ? Not having the content at all ?

How do you feel about the fact that certain farmers will starve if they can’t grow coca or poppies as a cash crop?

I'm glad that they can grow crops that mean they're able to afford to feed their families. I'm pretty sure they are as well.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#73

Post by patio11 »

jasondrowley wrote: post #67
patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

I like to think of the information I consume online as more than "inventory".

The information is not the inventory, because this particular information is not available for sale in a rivalrous fashion. Your attention is the inventory. (This is sometimes phrased sardonically as "If you're not paying for it, you are the product.")

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#74

Post by lkozma »

patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

This is very informative and you make many cogent observations. However, you don't even remotely address the point of the article, which, as far as I understand it, is that something is fundamentally wrong if a child wants to learn about dinosaurs and he/she is lured away with addictive games. Even more so if this is considered the pinnacle of our combined capabilities and at the same time a hint of the future into which we are heading.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#75

Post by [deleted] »

blake8086 wrote: post #66

This is a common theme I see, often with respect to Zynga. People want things. Some people want things that other people think they shouldn't want (games, drugs, sex, whatever). Some people get mad (or in this case, sad) when someone provides a thing they think people shouldn't want to people who want it.

[deleted]

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#76

Post by [deleted] »

patio11 wrote: post #71
bhousel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remnant inventory is also virtually synonymous with Google... really, how? ...which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising... what? ...which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive. wat? Do you really believe this?

really, how? Advertising is not traditionally sold on a self-service basis. It is traditionally sold via Big Enterprise Sales processes, caricatured above as "steak dinners between advertising sales and ad buyers at big brands." This is enormously big business: ever bus ad, every TV ad, most newspaper ads, etc that you've ever seen was sold this way. Google is the alternative model for advertising, and (as such) is o…

[deleted]

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#77

Post by raganwald »

blake8086 wrote: post #66

This is a common theme I see, often with respect to Zynga. People want things. Some people want things that other people think they shouldn't want (games, drugs, sex, whatever). Some people get mad (or in this case, sad) when someone provides a thing they think people shouldn't want to people who want it.

Or to put it in a word, they have “morals.” And when they talk about it, they are ”moralizing.”

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#78

Post by tlogan »

patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#79

Post by bhousel »

raganwald wrote: post #48
joshrice wrote: post #20

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that AdWords can target users and offer them ads based on what they think they might want. They're not always contextual. Do you like to play games Reg?

This is a very interesting point, thank you. So here’s a thought experiment: I look at this article about dinosaurs, and Google shows me an ad about mountain bike holidays. Great timing, Spring is looming and I am making plans for Summer (Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel.) It’s late afternoon, when I historically am distractible (witness reading about dinosaurs d…

I don’t know if Google can come up with a way to make quadrillions of dollars and to keep me from being sad. Maybe my feelings are simply a cost of doing business, or maybe what I want is impossible. But I think my sadness is independent of the attraction the ad holds for me personally. My issue is with the relationship between the ad and the content.

I don't think there can be another way. Advertising necessarily extracts value out of your attention, while simultaneously devaluing your browsing/watching/listening/driving/etc experience. Attention is a (mostly) zero-zum game.

If Google could find a way to put subliminal advertising on the web (and those glasses would sure be a pretty badass way to go about it), maybe it wouldn't make you as sad?

Post reply on HN